Cases of Interest.

NST is currently involved in a wide range of matters.

  • for companies, shareholders and directors in respect of corporate governance, securities, oppression and/or director/officer liability issues, including derivative actions;
  • in major construction disputes:
  • in partnership disputes including questions of the existence of partnership;
  • in international litigation and international enforcement of judgments;
  • in subrogated insurance claims;
  • for defendants in class actions;
  • for major Canadian financial institutions in various stages of litigation;
  • for parties involved in major civil forfeiture proceedings in British Columbia;
  • for receivers, debtors and creditors in various insolvency proceedings;
  • in various professional negligence and professional regulatory proceedings;
  • for parties in the cannabis industry involved in commercial and shareholder disputes;
  • for parties in disputes relating to issues involving property division, title, access, and major property and development projects;
  • for parties in significant family business and wealth disputes;
  • for parties in commercial disputes relating to small pleasure and commercial aircraft;
  • in disputes between franchisors and franchisees.

The following are substantial cases of interest in which NST has been involved.

Skeena Resources Ltd. v. Mill

2022 BCSC 1360 and 2022 BCSC 2032

Partner Karen Carteri and associate act for Caitlin Ohama-Darcus for Richard Mill, a recorded holder of mineral rights in connection with a dispute relating to a mineral claim in British Columbia. The opposing party is Skeena Resources Ltd., whose predecessors, Prime Resources Group Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation, operated a gold mine known as the Eskay Creek mine between 1994 and 2008. The central issue in dispute is the rights to the minerals contained in certain valuable gold mine tailings from the former Eskay Creek mine.

Read More

Law Society of British Columbia v. Guo

2022 BCCA 154

Partner Peter R. Senkpiel and associate Heather E. Doi successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia at the British Columbia Court of Appeal in an important appeal dealing with the definition of “trust funds” under the Law Society’s Rules. The Court of Appeal affirmed a Law Society Tribunal decision that funds received by a lawyer pursuant to fixed or flat fee arrangement for services to be performed are trust funds that must be deposited into a trust account until the services have been performed, unless there is an express agreement with the client.

Read More

Bamberger v. Vancouver (Board of Parks and Recreation)

2022 BCSC 49

NST acted for the petitioners in this judicial review of two orders of the General Manager of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, while defending a petition for an injunction brought by the Park Board. Together with co-counsel at Arvay Finlay LLP, Julia Riddle successfully argued that decisions fundamentally affecting the lives of people who are homeless should not be made without hearing from those persons, and that the court should not condone by injunction the displacement of people who are causing no harm and have nowhere else to go.

Read More

Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

2019 BCCA 66, and 2021 SCC 7

NST successfully acted for Metro Vancouver on this appeal from an arbitration award, achieving success at all levels of court, overturning a $2.88 million award made against Metro Vancouver. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Metro Vancouver did not breach any duty of good faith when it made its waste allocation decision in 2011, finding that Metro Vancouver’s decision was consistent with the purposes for which it was given the discretion to make those decisions under the contract. Writing for the majority, Justice Kasirer held that Metro Vancouver had no obligation to put its counterparty, Wastech’s interests ahead of its own, which, implicitly, would be the result if the arbitration award were permitted to stand. Metro Vancouver’s only obligation was to be “loyal” to the contract, and not to Wastech. In the circumstances, Metro Vancouver’s waste allocation was consistent with that obligation.

Read More